This was yet another bad week for the woman who, Democrats say, is so politically savvy and widely popular that, in a new YouGov.com poll on the popularity of famous Americans conducted by the Times of London, she came in last.

Among the folks ahead of her: George W. Bush and Rush Limbaugh.

And that was the least of her bad news.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ new book revealed that Mrs. Clinton changed her position on the surge in Iraq based purely on Democratic primary politics. Your support for sending soldiers into combat is based on your need for liberal anti-war primary votes?

Hardly presidential.

Then the bipartisan report on Benghazi was released — bipartisan as in chaired by Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein — concluding that the death of a U.S. ambassador on Clinton’s watch could have been prevented. That the State Department had advance notice of the rising threat. That security was insufficient.

We also know, thanks to testimony from multiple military sources, that when then-Secretary Clinton looked the father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods in the eye and promised to “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted,” she already knew Ben-ghazi was a terror attack, not a movie review gone wrong.

I mentioned Rush Limbaugh earlier. He created a minor kerfuffle a while back by claiming, incorrectly, that Clinton’s boss on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment case had fired her.

Instead what Jerome Zeifman, the committee’s chief counsel said of Hillary was: “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.”

That was Mrs. Clinton’s first boss. Her last boss, President Obama, didn’t exactly fight to keep her at the State Department.

And why would he? Forget Benghazi for the moment (lots of blame to go around the Obama administration there). Mrs. Clinton took over the State Department in 2009. Look at the world, the Middle East in particular. Is it a better place after four years of Clinton’s (ahem) “leadership?”

The re-set with Russia? Syria? Egypt? Israel? Iran? Please tell me the great Clinton accomplishment in foreign affairs? OK — how about a minor one, then?

What about Hillary Clinton the U.S. senator? Ah, yes, the great “Clinton-Foghorn Act of 2000-and- It-Never-Happened.”

And before that? Before a woman who’d never served in office was elected to the U.S. Senate in a state she’d never lived in?

Nada.

You’ve probably noticed by now my use of the somewhat problematic “Mrs. Clinton” to describe the Democratic front-runner. I don’t mean it as an anti-feminist slur in any way, but rather as a show of respect for her only two political accomplishments:

• She married one of the most talented politicians alive today

• She stayed married to him, despite the many embarrassing instances of faint, female moaning from various White House closets.

David von Drehle writes in the Time cover story that “Hillary Clinton has not decided whether to run for president again.” But he believes this is a bit of Clintonian vocab-gymnastics. “It depends on the definition of the word ‘decided,’ ” he says.

I’m predicting that, in the end, she won’t run. She won’t because, while she can easily win the Democratic primary, it will become clear she has no case to make to the American people as a whole.

Hire Mrs. Clinton to be our next president? With her record, who would?